Exploring “Good Garbage Governance” in Low-Income Area: A Case Study of the Ga East Municipal Assembly - Accra, Ghana

LARTEY, BENJAMIN NII BADU

Exploring “Good Garbage Governance” in Low- Income Area: A Case Study of the Ga East Municipal Assembly- Accra, Ghana

Masters Thesis for the award of Philosophy (Mphil) in Development Studies, Specializing in Geography

Trondheim, May, 2017

Supervisor: Camilla Louise Bjerkli (Associate Professor)

Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

i

DECLARATION

I, Lartey Benjamin Nii Badu, hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own research except for the references to other people’s work that have been duly acknowledged. This thesis was supervised by Associate Professor Camilla Louise Bjerkli and has neither in part nor wholly been presented for another degree in this university or another university. I bear full responsibility for any limitation that may arise out of this research.

………. ……….

Lartey Benjamin Nii Badu (Date) (Student)

……….. ………

Associate Prof. Camilla Louise Bjerkli (Date) (Supervisor)

ii

I hereby dedicate this thesis to Saint Herbert Berko and Atomic Prince of Peace Church choir, Presbyterian Church of Ghana; for their support and prayers throughout my studies.

iii

First and foremost, I give thanks to my Lord and master Saviour Jesus Christ for every spiritual blessing. He has bestowed upon me. To Him, all majesty ascribe forever and ever, AMEN.

Secondly, I express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Associate Prof. Camilla Louise Bjerkli for her guidance and constructive criticisms in order to make this study successful.

I also extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Norwegian Educational State Fund for this great opportunity of studying for a master’s degree. A special acknowledgement to the academic and administrative staffs at the Department of Geography, NTNU. I also say thank you to the 2017 Development studies badge at the Department of Geography for their cooperation and commitment.

Special thanks to the staffs at the Waste Management department of the Ga East Municipal Assembly, Amanee Waste Services, Alliance Waste Service Limited as well as the various Unit Committee members in the municipality. This also includes the chief of Kwabenya and the households interviewed in the various towns. A big thank you to my field Assistant Joel Yaaba and the CEO of RESMAD Research Consult, Mr. Ofori Baafi for their time and dedication during my fieldwork.

My deep appreciation to every member of my family (Lartey family) especially for their care and support throughout my life, always encouraging me to achieve greater height, not only in academia but in other fields of life.

iv

The concept of governance since the late 1980’s has gained much prominence in the development arena especially when dealing with issues like solid waste. In line with the concept, this study explores UNDP’s term of “good garbage governance” by using the Ga East Municipal Assembly as its case study. It presents the changes that governance has brought to the Waste Management Department as well as the challenges the department faces in fostering good good governance.

The study was guided by some theoretical and conceptual framework. These include World Bank’s concept of Governance as well as Norman Long’s framework on Actor- Oriented Approach. Other concepts used in the research include the concept of Institutional Pluralism, Power, Environmental conflict, Environmental in (justice) and Inequality. The study further adopted an exploratory qualitative approach by using both primary and secondary sources of data. Interview, both semi- structured (5) and unstructured (7), as well as Field Observation and Focus Group Discussion (2) were used in producing primary sources of data. Documentary analysis was also used in producing secondary data for this study. In reaching research participants, the study relied on purposive, snowball, convenient and simple random sampling techniques.

The study reveals that the introduction of solid waste decentralization as a form of good garbage governance has brought in new actors into the management of solid waste; thereby leading to the reorganization of solid waste in the study area. However, much improvement has not been recorded as there exist a gap between what governance tends to achieve and what it actually achieve such as effective participation of all the actors in solid waste decision- making process, increase transparency and accountability, information sharing among others. This is as a result of the unequal power relations such as legislative state power vested in the hands of bureaucrats, work experiences as well as education that exist among the actors involved in solid waste management. This makes the elite able to still control the affairs of solid waste leading to the marginalization of the other actors; hence questioning the motive of good garbage governance.

This limited stakeholder participation, hindered transparency, led to the misappropriation of solid waste funds, lack of trust from the community towards the bureaucrats as well as the lack of political will from the bureaucrats towards solid waste management policies.

The study recommends that the forms in which power exhibited itself should be identified and addressed in order to be able to improve upon solid waste management. In addition, national and

v

municipal governments should make efforts to improve good garbage governance by ensuring an effective citizen participation, accountability and transparency, and fairness in decision making.

Further, the study also entreats both national and municipal government as well as the households to be proactive and also see the prospects associated with the management of solid waste in terms of job creation, energy generation and revenue generation activity when dealing with solid waste matters. This calls for a revision of the National Environmental Sanitation Policy by giving equal opportunities to the various actors involved in solid waste management as well as intensifying its educational programs to increase awareness among the citizens.

vi

DECLARATION ... i

DEDICATION ...ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii

ABSTRACT ...iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ...vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... x

LIST OF TABLES ... xii

LIST OF FIGURES ... xii

LIST OF TEXT BOXES ... xii

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Introduction ... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ... 3

1.3. Research Objectives and Questions ... 4

1.3.1. Main Research Questions ... 4

1.4. Significance of the Study ... 5

1.5 Organization of Chapters ... 5

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW ... 6

2.1 Introduction ... 6

2.2 Governance ... 6

2.2.1 Understanding Bad Governance ... 9

2.2.2 Understanding Good Governance ... 10

2.2.3 Linking Theory and Practice ... 11

2.2.4 Institutional Pluralism and Governance ... 12

2.2.5 Urban Politics and Power... 14

2.2.6 Environmental Conflict ... 17

2.2.7 Environmental (in)justice and Inequality ... 18

2.3 Actor- Oriented Approach ...21

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ... 25

3.1 Introduction ...25

3.2 Justification for using Qualitative Methodology ...25

3.3 Preparing for Fieldwork ...26

vii

3.4 Sampling Techniques and Research Participants ...27

3.5 Research Methods (Producing Primary Sources of Data) ...30

3.5.1 Interviews ... 30

3.5.1.1 Selecting Research Participants for Interviews ... 31

3.5.1.2 Conducting semi- structured and unstructured Interviews ... 32

3.5.2 Field Observations ... 33

3.5.3 Focus Group Discussion ... 34

3.6 Secondary Sources of Data (Documentary Analysis)...35

3.7 Data Analysis and Processing ...35

3.8 Positionality ...36

3.9 Ethical Issues ...37

3.10 Validity and Reliability ...38

3.11 Problems Encountered on the Field ...40

CHAPTER FOUR: PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA ... 42

4.1 Introduction ...42

4.2 Selection of the GEMA ...42

4.3 Geographical Profile of the GEMA ...43

4.4 Political Organization and Governance ...44

4.5 Demography, Migration and Social Organization (Ethnicity) ...45

4.6 Households and Housing ...46

4.7 Economic Activities and Employment ...46

CHAPTER FIVE: MAIN ACTORS AND THEIR ROLES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ... 48

5.1 Introduction ...48

5.2 The Department of Environment and Sanitation ...48

5.3 Private Waste Management Companies (ESPAG) ...50

5.4 Informal Waste Operators ...52

5.5 Civil Society Group Organizations ...53

5.6 Households ...54

CHAPTER SIX: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN GHANA ... 57

6.1 Introduction ...57

6.2 Before Solid Waste Governance: Pre- Structural Adjustment Era ...57

6.2.1 Post- Structural Adjustment Program Era ... 58

6.2.2 Towards Solid Waste Governance: A Multi- Actor Policy Framework ... 59

viii

6.3 Organization of Solid Waste in GEMA ...60

6.3.1 Primary Collection of Solid Waste ... 61

6.3.1.1 Central Container System and House-to-House Service (Low- Income Areas) ... 61

6.3.1.2 Private Sector Collection in High-Income Areas ... 63

6.3.2 Secondary Collection/ Transportation of Solid Waste ... 64

6.3.3 Solid Waste Disposal in GEMA ... 65

6.3.4 Recycling and Reusing of Solid Waste in GEMA ... 67

6.4 General perceptions of the current condition of solid waste management...69

6.5 Chapter Summary ...70

CHAPTER SEVEN: PROBLEMS FACING GOOD GARBAGE GOVERNANCE IN GEMA ... 71

7.1 Introduction ...71

7.2 Lack of Transparency ...71

7.3 Limited Public Involvement in SWM Decision- Making Process ...73

7.4 Lack of Trust and Political Will ...77

7.5 Lack of cooperation and coordination among actors ...80

7.6 Financial Constrains ...81

7.7 The Problem of Corruption ...83

7.8 Limited Skilled Personnel ...85

7.9 Summary of Chapter ...89

CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 90

8.1 Introduction ...90

8.2 Summary of Findings ...90

8.2.1 Main Actors Involved in Solid Waste Management and Roles ... 90

8.2.2 The Current Situation of Solid Waste Management in GEMA... 92

8.2.3 Problems Facing Good Garbage Governance in GEMA ... 93

8.3 Conclusion and Recommendations ...95

8.4 Limitation of the Study ...97

8.5 Areas for Further Studies ...97

REFERENCES ... 98

APPENDICES ... 113

APPENDIX A: Interview Guide for the Municipal Waste Management Department... 113

APPENDIX B: Interview Guide for Private Waste Companies in the Municipality ... 114

ix

APPENDIX C: Interview Guide for the Civil Society Group Organization ... 115 APPENDIX D: Interview Guide for Households ... 116 APPENDIX E: Field Photography ... 117

x

AMA Accra Metropolitan Assembly ASDA Akwapim South District Assembly CBO Community Based Organization CHRE Centre on Human Right and Eviction

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research DES Department for Environment and Sanitation DFID Department for International Development EHM Environmental Health and Management EI Establishment Instrument

EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERP Economic Recovery Programme

ESAA Environmental Sanitation Assessment and Audit

ESICOME Expanded Sanitation Inspection and Compliance Enforcement ESPAG Environmental Service Providers Association of Ghana GAEC Ghana Atomic Energy Commission

GEMA Ga East Municipal Assembly

GEMCA Ga East Municipal Chiefs Association GES Ghana Education Service

GHS Ghana Health Service GLG Ghana Landfill Guidelines GNFS Ghana National Fire Service GSS Ghana Statistical Service GWMA Ga West Municipal Assembly

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IMF International Monetary Fund

KTDA Kwabenya Township Development Association LC Lands Commission

xi

LNMA La Nkwantanang Municipal Assembly MA Municipal Assembly

MCE Municipal Chief Executive

MEST Ministry of Environment Science and Technology MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development NEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NESP National Environmental Sanitation Policy

NESPoCC National Environmental Policy Coordinating Council NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NYEP National Youth Employment Program SAPS Structural Adjustment Policies

SSNIT Social Security and National Insurance Trust TCP Town and Country Planning

TESD Town Environmental Sanitation Development TMA Tema Metropolitan Assembly

UNDP United Nations Development Programme WMD Waste Management Department

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1 Table shows the sampling techniques, methods and the number of Interviews ... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 Analytical Framework to the Organization of Solid Waste in GEMA... 23 Figure 4. 1 Map showing the Study Area ... 43

Figure 7. 1 Problems Facing Good Garbage Governance in GEMA ... 88

LIST OF TEXT BOXES

Text Box 2.1 Governance, Power and Conflict in Israel……….………20 Text Box 7. 1 Arnstein Ladder of Citizen Engagement (1969)... 75

1

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Over the past few decades, solid waste management¹ has become more complicated as a result of the complex interplay between rapid urban growth, increasing wealth of urban dwellers and the development and consumption of different goods which are less biodegradable. This is creating many problems for various municipalities across the globe (Asase et al., 2009; Oteng- Ababio, 2011). One major problem facing the management of solid waste in developing countries is the lack of a comprehensive strategy that seeks to integrate the knowledge and skills of the various actors, right from policymaking to its implementation (Owusu et al., 2012; Oteng- Ababio, 2010).

These actors which include the city authorities, the private sector as well as civil society group organizations can help manage the urban environment in a sustainable way. However, most of the solid waste policies are executed with little or no discretion from the grassroots level (Agamuthu et al., 2009; Abas & Wee, 2015). Furthermore, city authorities in these developing countries often lack the financial resources, technology, knowledge, and capacity to formulate and enforce policies (Fobil et al., 2008). In addition, the poor economic conditions in such countries do not allow for the majority of the poor population to pay for solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal services. As a result, the limited high- income areas are served with solid waste services at the expense of the majority population in the income areas (see Oteng- Ababio, 2011).

In recent years, due to the failure of most municipal governments to provide an adequate solid waste service for their citizens, various approaches have been embraced to tackle the problem of poor solid waste management. These approaches include the technical approach which relies on scientific knowledge and skills in the treatment and disposal of solid waste. Other approaches involve solid waste privatization (Post, 1999), a collaboration between municipal governments and the private sector in the form of Public- Private Partnership ( Oteng- Ababio, 2007) as well as the role played by the informal sector in solid waste management (Oteng- Ababio, 2012). These approaches, however, have not provided a long-term solution to the problem. Currently, in order to further address the problem of poor solid waste management, international donor organizations including the World Bank, IMF and, UNDP have stressed the importance of embracing the

1 Solid Waste Management is described as the collection, treatment, and disposal of municipal solid waste, which includes wastes from the noted sources (Nunan, 2000; Bhuiyan, 2010).

2

principles of good governance. Following this, development agendas have given considerable attention to governance, and the United Nations (UN) has embraced the term ‘good garbage governance’ in its report (UN-Habitat, 2010b; Bjerkli, 2013). Their call for a governance approach to solid waste management is where the activities and knowledge of civil society group organizations², the city authorities as well as the private sector can be integrated effectively. This takes the form of decentralization³. Nonetheless, studies have shown that issues pertaining to power and politics need to be given much prominence as they can undermine the effectiveness of good governance (Schalkwijk, 2005; Grindle, 2007; Bjerkli, 2013).

Ghana among many developing countries in the world continues to grapple with poor solid waste management. A study made by Oteng- Ababio (2010), reveals that the problem of solid waste might be as a result of the non- implementation of a management system that is politically, socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Achieving an effective and efficient management system in solid waste should involve all groups within the society including the local authority, Community and Faith Based Organizations, Non- Governmental Organizations, households (Hardoy, Mitlin & Satterthwaite, 2013). Asomani- Boateng (2016) explains that local communities, for instance, could work hand in hand with the private and public waste service agencies, which will help reduce their operational cost as well as enhancing a better service delivery. The informal sector plays a crucial role in promoting solid waste reduction, solid waste segregation, and the recycling and reusing of inorganic solid waste materials, all of which have increased in recent years (Oteng- Ababio, 2012). Oteng- Ababio goes on further to illustrate how civil society group organizations, for instance, respond to poor environmental conditions by initiating and promoting primary collections as in the case of La Mansamokpe Association in La Township in Accra, Ghana. Asomani- Boateng (2016), contests that, regardless of the important roles played by the informal sector and the civil society group organizations, governments in developing countries continue to give preference to a technocratic, top- down approach due to the

2Civil society is described as ‘the arena in society between the state, the market, and the family where citizens advance their interests’ (Heinrich, 2005). It has a shifting dialectics from organization recognized by the government to include non- formal social organization like the households. In this research, the Unit Committee Members were of importance as they constituted my main civil society group together with the traditional authority or chiefs.

3 Decentralization is understood as “the transfer of powers from central authorities to lower levels in a political- administrative and territorial hierarchy” (Larson and Soto, 2008).

3

financial gains of some corrupt government officials (Oteng- Ababio, 2010; Post & Obirih- Opareh 2003).

This research seeks to explore the effectiveness of good garbage governance⁴ in low-income urban areas of the GEMA, taking into account World Bank’s concept of governance which has dominated development discourse and being implemented by governments across the world. The aim of governance is to improve the management and provision of public services including solid waste.

1.2 Problem Statement

The burgeoning nature of the process of urbanization within the Ga East Municipality has increased the level of economic activities, which tends to have a positive correlation with the various amount of goods and services consumed (GSS, 2014). This together with inadequate finance and expertise, logistics etcetera have led to the situation whereby there is an increase in the amount of uncollected solid waste that is generated in the municipality (Addae, 2014). It is estimated that about 385 tons of solid waste is generated monthly, out of which 261 tons are collected and disposed of, representing about 67% (GSS. 2014). This leaves a substantial amount of solid waste uncollected. In this direction, various kinds of inconveniences are created including health hazard to the people and reducing the beautification of the municipality. Pressure continue to mount on the Municipal Assembly’s Department of Environment and Sanitation, with the need to protect the health of the population among other important aims like promoting environmental quality and sustainability (ibid).

In understanding the problem of solid waste management in GEMA, previous studies have focused on household willingness to pay for solid waste (see Addae, 2014). Addae in her research identifies and explores the factors that influence households’ willingness to pay for an improved solid waste collection within the GEMA. Also, Yoada et al., (2014), explored the practices of community members and their perceptions of solid waste management and its associated health implication.

They analyzed the social and behavioral factors that affect an effective solid waste management system. These studies among other studies have contributed to existing knowledge gap by deepening our understandings about people’s perceptions and attitudes toward solid waste. They

4 Good Garbage Governance and solid waste governance are used interchangeably in this study.

4

also help us to understand how solid waste is managed and can be improved upon at the household level. However, there is a lack of research on how the various actors including the city authorities, civil society group organizations, the informal sector as well as the households involved in solid waste management interact and how their interactions affect the management of solid waste. There also exist a lack of research that identifies the barriers that limit the interaction among these actors and how these barriers can be tackled. Following these, one outstanding question that has necessitated the need for this research is to examine the processes and outcomes in solid waste governance and its related environmental conflict, by also taking into account the issue of power.

In addition, I want to understand the contributions, actions and everyday struggles of the various actors involved in the governance process. This will help policy makers and future researchers to understand the extent to which solid waste is managed not only in the municipality but also in Ghana as a whole.

1.3. Research Objectives and Questions

The research on Good Garbage Governance in Low-Income Areas is to examine the processes and outcomes in the management of solid waste. This is to broaden our understanding of Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices. The specific objectives are as follow:

 To identify the main actors and their contributions to solid waste management

 To analyze the current situation of solid waste governance in the municipality

 To explore the major problems undermining the effectiveness of good garbage governance

 To offer recommendations to the municipality and other stakeholders for policy making

1.3.1. Main Research Questions

 Who are the main actors involved and what roles do these actors play in the management of solid waste?

 How is solid waste managed in the municipality?

 What are the major factors undermining the effectiveness of good garbage governance in the GEMA?

5 1.4. Significance of the Study

The study provides an insight into the current waste management practices of the GEMA. It adds to existing knowledge gap by looking at how governance approach can be used to study solid waste management. It helps us to understand the main obstacles the solid waste sector faces and how these problems can be solved. That is, the study provides policy- makers with knowledge on how to avoid policy failures, which might occur as due to the little interaction with the general public. The study further serves as a case to most municipal governments on how to go about with a public developmental project.

1.5 Organization of Chapters

The study is divided into eight chapters. The Chapter One outlines the general introduction of the study, the problem statement as well as the research objectives and study that the study tends to achieve and answer. It also looked at the importance of the research. Chapter Two describes the theoretical and conceptual framework guiding the study. It further reviews relevant literature necessary for the study. Chapter Three concentrates on the research methodology adopted for the research. It comprised of the research methods used in producing data, sampling techniques and method of data analysis. Chapter Four explains why the study area was selected and, further gives the general profile of the study area. Chapter Five discusses the first objective of the study by identifying the various actors involved in solid waste management and their respective roles.

Chapter Six focuses on the second objective by giving an account on the current situation of solid waste management in GEMA. Chapter Seven examines the problems undermining the effective implementation of good garbage governance in the municipality. Chapter Eight concludes the study by offering recommendations for policymaking based on the research findings. It also talks about the limitations of the study as well as the implications for further research.

6

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In exploring good garbage governance in the GEMA, various theoretical approaches can be used.

However, for the purpose of this research, I decided to use World Bank’s concept of governance in order to analyze the often dynamic and complex processes of policymaking and implementation.

The concept of power is also adopted in order to understand how unequal power relations affect decisions and actions pertaining to solid waste governance. I discussed the concept of Institutional Pluralism and its relationship with solid waste governance. Environmental Conflict, Environmental (In)justice and Inequality are also discussed as they are crucial in examining the outcomes in solid waste governance. Long’s Actor- Oriented Approach was used to identify the main actors involved in solid waste governance and their roles as well as how their operations are caught up within the interaction of micro and macro influences in the governance process.

2.2 Governance

The concept of governance was first introduced in a developing world scenario by a World Bank report on Sub- Saharan Africa: “From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. A Long-Term Perspective Study” (World Bank, 1989; cited in Bhuiyan, 2010), after development experts expressed great concern at the end of the late 1980s about the failure of neoliberal policies or structural adjustment reforms and the various countries inability to reap the benefits of a long decade of strict reforms (Woods, 1999). Ngaire Woods further intimates that the answer widely agreed on in the early part of the 1990’s was that countries taking on adjustment policies lacked the institutional capacity to ensure its fruition. The concept of governance then came to the fore and gained grounds, with the view that it will play a crucial role in determining societal well-being (Graham et al., 2003), and a major component of development assistance (Grindle, 2010). Following this, the then Secretary- General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, envisaged a growing consensus when he stated that

“good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development” (United Nations, 1998). Since then, governance has been used in different context to refer to Environmental governance, Corporate governance, Community governance, Organizational governance, Security Governance, Political Governance: all with the

7

aim of promoting development (Brinkerhoff, 2007; Brinkerhoff & Johnson, 2008; Jayne & Ward, 2016).

The main difference between government and governance is that, government refers to the formal structures and institutions characterized by strong institutional legitimacy, meaningful autonomy from senior government officials and basic local governments, relevant territorial control (Lefèvre, 1998), that formulates and implements decisions and actions in accordance with the laid down rules (Béné & Neiland 2006; Nunan, 2015). This is different from governance. According to Stoker (1998; following Rhodes, 1996), research on governance reflects the growing concern within the social sciences in the changing patterns in governing styles, which is about sharing responsibilities and power between the private sector, civil society group organizations and the state. Governance is about setting the policy agenda and objectives and the processes of implementing management actions (Béné & Neiland 2006). Governance, therefore, extends its meaning to encapsulate the new process of governing or the new methods by which societies are governed (Stoker, 1998;

Davies, 2008). The Concept governance, has different meanings for different people (see Kjær, 2004; Schuppert 2005; Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009). Beginning with World Bank’s definition in its 1989 report on Sub-Saharan Africa, Governance is defined as “comprising the state's institutional arrangements, the processes for formulating policy, decision-making, and implementation;

information flows within government; and the overall relationship between citizens and government” (World Bank, 1989; cited also in Woods, 2000). Woods goes on to intimate that this definition in subsequent years has been revised by the world Bank so as to keep up with its constitutional mandate and make it more effective. The World Bank revised definition tends to focus more on implementing and promoting neo- liberal policies. For instance, the World Bank in 1997, in its World Development Report, states in relation to governance that “an effective state is vital for the provision of the goods and services and the rules and institutions, that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier, happier lives” (World Bank, 1997; Woods, 2000). From the above definition, it can be deduced that the World Bank is committed to promoting the private sector through participation, transparency, accountability, efficiency, fairness and ownership.

According to the UNDP (1997), governance is defined as “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels’, which comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise

8

their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences” (UNDP, 1997; see also Grindle, 2007; Gisselquist, 2012). To the UNDP, governance is characterized by transparency, equity, participation that ensures that political, social and economic agenda are based on broad consultative work in society and that the voices of the marginalized group (poorest and the most vulnerable) are considered in decision-making over the allocation of development resources. In understanding governance is to decentre our attention from the role of state and its subsidiary institutions to include interventions from civil society group organizations (UNDP, 1997; Grindle, 2007). As World Bank’s definition is committed to promoting neoliberal policies, UNDP tends to focus on the role of civil society groups in bringing about social change. Central to the governance approach is that societal matters are not the preserve of the state or technocrats and the scientific community but rather decisions should be of social, cultural, political and economic concerns that shape the environment in which we find ourselves. In addition to the governance concept is the importance of scale, thus local to global that may influence the ways in which decisions regarding societal wellbeing are made (Davies, 2008). Kooiman & Jentoft (2009), concludes that these mixes or combination of different actors, different sets of rules and processes are remedies to changes in societal dynamics and ever-growing societal diversity and complexity. In terms of responses to major societal issues, we need to look not only to the state but also to the market as well as civil society, each with its own expertise and responsibility.

From the above definitions, debates focusing on governance finds it very difficult to pin down the meaning or definition of governance and its practices (Graham et al., 2003). Common in these definitions is the weakening of state institutions and the strengthening of civil society organizations while market forces are let loose to operate (Griffin, 2001; Myers, 2005). Further is the recognition among individuals, community members, private entities, civil society groups, government, that governance analysis are geared towards understanding of rules and how decisions are made (Davies, 2008). According to Bhuiyan (2010; citing from Pierre, 2000) governance has a dual meaning. Firstly, it refers to the current and empirical adaptation of the state to its external environment as it emerges in the late twentieth century. Secondly, governance portrays a theoretical representation of coordination of social systems and for the most part, the role of the state in that process (Pierre, 2000). All in all, governance is concerned with the performance of the government; including public and private sectors, global and local arrangements, formal structures, informal norms and practices, and spontaneous and intentional system of control (Roy, 2006;

9

Bhuiyan, 2010). These all come together to influence decision outcomes. With governance approach, it is expected of the state to provide the right atmosphere for the organization of urban services and to monitor these services provided. That is, the role of the state is to steer the management process. Non-state actors like Civil Society Group Organization, the Private sector, among other groups on the other hand are expected to be able to participate in the decision-making processes and to provide the needed urban services (see Bjerkli, 2013).

2.2.1 Understanding Bad Governance

Bhuiyan (2010; also see Moore, 2001), contests that, “bad governance” is neither deep- rooted in the traditions of the people of poor countries nor an outcome of poverty. It is rather the result of the ways in which state authority in the developing countries has been constructed and is being maintained through economic and political relations with the global economy. He further points out that the policies and practices of the developed countries governments and the pattern of international economic transactions help sustain bad governance in the south (ibid). Khan (2002), goes on to highlight that for bad governance be made manifest, certain conditions must come to play. Firstly, is the inability to make a clear distinction between what is public and what is private which can lead to the direction of public resources for individual private gain. Added to the above is excessively limiting participation based on non-transparent decision making. Furthermore, is the lack of fairness in decision- making process and excessive bureaucratic processes that limits the functioning of other actors, which can promote bribery and corruption (Bhuiyan, 2010). In most municipalities across the developing countries, these are said to be very common which however have limited the operations of non- state actors including the private sector and the civil society group organization (World Bank, 1992). For instance, Nunan (2015), explains that, the World Bank’s 1989 report attributed the poor economic growth in the developing countries to “bad governance” which captured issues of corruption, nepotism and bad policies, lack of transparency and accountability. The report brought to the fore the immediate need for good governance, requiring an increase in transparency and accountability within state institutions in the developing countries that can lead to improvements in public services including the management of solid waste.

10 2.2.2 Understanding Good Governance

Good governance, in particular, is used in a normative sense, referring to how governance “should be” rather than “necessarily is” (Nunan, 2015). The concept of good governance has become an important criterion for assessing the role of the state in the development agenda as well as defining the criteria for development and a necessary condition for it. Good governance is used as an umbrella concept to describe a wide variety of “good things” (see Grindle, 2010). However, this variety of “good things” which are being promoted by international donor agencies, are not adapted to the local setting (Grindle, 2007; 2010; Bjerkli, 2013). That is, the implementation of good governance in most developing countries has not produced the intended result due to local factors including the political culture that exist in such areas. International donor agency fails to pay close attention to the political economy that can influence the way decision- making process are carried out. Bjerkli (2013), opines that, refusing to pay much attention to the power dynamics at play, would mean that government officials would misuse power to their own advantage and in this instance, promote bad governance. These variety of “good things” as formulated by international donor agencies are worthy of support and implementing. In identifying and making good governance an indicator for development, each of these “good things” has been transformed into a necessary component of developmental policies that can stimulate growth and political stability (Grindle, 2010). Following this argument, Grindle’s recent publication reveals that the list of

“good things” of good governance includes many more conditions to be achieved and these include, widespread service delivery, sound regulation, an open trade regime, respect for human rights, gender and racial equality, a good investment climate, sustainable energy use, citizen security, job creation etcetera (Grindle, 2017). Nevertheless, with more “good things” or principles being added to the good governance approach, achieving a “developed status” has become more burdensome for most developing countries. The problem is not the principles or

“good things” that these international donor agencies tend to promote but overloading the agenda of good governance, thus “inflating what must be done” beyond the capacities of most developing countries (considering their political economy and nature of their state institutions), and making good governance a precondition for development to occur (Grindle, 2010). What development practitioners expect from developing countries to achieve from good governance are extremely high. These technical solutions or “good things” from donor agencies have led to instances whereby power and resources are still concentrated in the hands of powerful actors at the expense

11

of the masses (Grindle, 2017). Adding to this, Merilee Grindle, goes on to highlight the need for

“good enough governance”, with target and goals being within the reach of developing countries and, that making it more realistic to attain (Grindle, 2004). This, she offers recommendation through the analysis of the political economy and the nature of state institutions that shape the options available for introducing and sustaining reform initiatives. Understanding how governance institutions (formal and informal) evolved and function is very important than proposing and relying on a variety of “good things” that serve as a recipe for social change or development.

Adopting a new policy or new system of governing institutions does not easily translate into a change in practice because this might conflict with existing rules, processes, and functions (Grindle, 2017). Good governance has been associated with the process of decentralizationsince the mid-1980s. Decentralization for some time now has been regarded by development practitioners as a positive development approach, bringing governance and related development to the doorsteps of people. On the other hand, decentralization as a governance process has rarely led to substantial improvements in the living conditions of people because of the incomplete devolution⁵ and deconcentration⁶ of power and resources. This is limiting the scope for decision- making and enforcement of rules (Nunan, 2015). Lockwood (2010), developed some principles for analyzing decentralization. Among these are Transparency⁷, Participation (Inclusion)⁸, Integration and coordination among actors⁹. Others include trust building, fairness, etc. These principles serve as recipes to which good garbage governance in GEMA is explored.

2.2.3 Linking Theory and Practice

There is a growing concern that governance concept is a political one and therefore calls for critical analysis that test whether the concept serves as a good basis for developing a coherent analytical approach (Marinetto, 2003; Davis, 2008). There are also concern about the theoretical nature of

5 Devolution refers to the transfer or delegation of power from central government to a lower level, which may include community-level organizations (Nunan, 2015).

6 Deconcentration also refers to where central ministries transfer power to branch offices outside of the capital city (Nunan, 2015).

7 Transparency denotes how visible are decision-making processes? Are reasons for decision- making communicated to stakeholders? Information about the arrangements and performance of governance structures should be available (Lockwood, 2010).

8 Participation/ Inclusion captures notions of existing mechanisms that are available which enables groups to take part and also influence decision- making process and outcomes (Lockwood, 2010).

9 Integration deals with coordination between and within levels of governance? How do information and resources flow? Do priorities, plans and activities within and across levels of governance fit together (Lockwood, 2010).

12

governance approach which has called for more empirical testing of the governance approach (Kooiman, 2003; Eberlein & Kerwer, 2004; Davies, 2008). This will provide a deeper understanding of what constitute good governance and how it is being implemented on the grounds. This calls for a shift from a normative understanding of good governance to an empirical one. This can serve as a framework for most development practitioners when studying other development related issues. Good governance approach was propounded to make governments across the world more productive and efficient in their daily activities. However, it is also important that more emphasis be placed on the unequal power relations among the various actors within the governance process. This is because of the tendency of excluding the less powerful actors from the decision- making process (Heynen, Kaika, & Swyngedouw, 2006; Bjerkli, 2013).

2.2.4 Institutional Pluralism and Governance

The limits of formal institutions (state and private actors) to enhance the efficient and effective allocation of public goods and services, has necessitated the need to integrate informal institutions in the development agenda. Institutional pluralism according to Claassen (2009), has a normative position of ensuring the just provision of public goods and services. Claassen explains that, there is no single principle of distributive justice, but rather different rules should be incorporated. This marks a shift from the single institution to complex institutions providing goods and services under different sets of rules at the same time. This therefore enhances the capabilities of producers and ensures that customer satisfaction is achieved (ibid). As defined by Tukahirwa et al., (2013), Institutional Pluralism involves the situation whereby multiple institutions operate within complex or diverse institutional arrangements simultaneously. Following this, these agencies cope within multiple set of rules: formalized and non- formalized (Fritzpatrick, 2006). This comes with different forms of accountability, different modes of payment and producer- customer relationship (Tukahirwa et al., 2013). At the heart of Institutional Pluralism are effectiveness¹⁰, efficiency¹¹ and accountability¹² (Blair, 2001). Among these three, accountability is seen as the most important factor in developing world context that can facilitate good governance. Institutional Pluralism enhances the effectiveness and legitimacy of the ruling government with the state having the opportunity to pay attention to other sectors. Harry Blair expands that, this is a solution to most

10 Effectiveness offers the best benefit to cost ratio

11 Efficiency delivers quality

12 Accountability ensures specific responsibilities for outcomes/ results

13

failed decentralization policies especially in the developing countries (ibid). Multiple relationships between organizations are very helpful because they enhance specialization and efficiency as compared to a single actor (Tukahirwa et al., 2013; Esman, 1991). Tukahirwa et al., (2013) illustrates that, Institutional Pluralism enhances cooperation, collaboration, complementarity and third party governance. In that, there is the sharing of centralized state responsibilities with other cooperating agencies and actors. Integrating Institutional Pluralism in social change processes enable us to understand how multiples agencies including the marginalized group can coordinate and collaborate with the state effectively in providing a public good or service, as this cannot be effectively be achieved by a single actor (Claassen, 2009). However, Blair (2001), reveals how institutional pluralism can be manipulated by the powerful class, leading to what he calls institutional monopoly: characterized by a technocratic top-down, centralized approach to governing. Institutional pluralism presents us with a normative approach to solid waste governance that needs to be subjected to more empirical testing.

The concept of Institutional Pluralism is a very useful concept in understanding good garbage governance. It involves a multi-stakeholder approach to solid waste whereby the social, political, economic and environmental issues are discussed by all members of the group or society (Abas &

Wee, 2015). This is seen to promote cooperation, collaboration, and coordination among members involved. Mohammed Niyas (2012), intimates that institutional pluralism is based on risks sharing, capacity building and priority to human and environment. These principles can ensure that a better system is attained when managing or delivering services like solid waste. With solid waste management being seen as a societal burden that needs the collective efforts of all individuals (Baabereyir, 2009), Institutional Pluralism helps us to understand how such environmental burden can be solved. This involves giving due attention to the views and expertise of other stakeholders.

This fosters the need for accountability and good governance (Bjerkli, 2013). However, it is important to stress that, there are unequal power relations at play within the society that influence the way decisions are made. This power tends to produce some setbacks like lack of trust, lack of accountability, limited participation etcetera. Institutional Pluralism can enhance an effective and efficient allocation of public goods and services when the right environment is provided for it to operate. In that, the local community, state and private companies involved in the delivery of the public goods and services are allowed to cooperate effectively without any hindrance. In using Institutional Pluralism in studying good garbage governance, I will be interested in the level of

14

involvement of the people, the need for accountability, and the collaboration that exist between state and non- state institutions as well as the power dynamics at play.

2.2.5 Urban Politics and Power

Hall & Barrett (2012), reveals that, one crucial issue that needs to be considered when analyzing urban governance is power; what it means and who possesses it? Power within our urban environment takes diverse forms and is unequally distributed among social groups or actors. The concept of Power has been used to study societal ways of life for many decades and applying power in a study is to comprehend the problems and struggles of the everyday life. (McAreavey, 2009). Yet its meaning remains a matter of controversy in the social sciences (Lukes, 2005). This subjects the concept to open questions and criticisms (Few, 2002).In most cases and usage, power may seem a straightforward concept to refer to the capacity to bring about change (see McAreavey, 2009) or the control an individual has over his environment or over another individual (Bryant &

Bailey, 1997). There are many arguments among both academia and political activists who are divided along different lines of opinion on what makes or constitutes power, how power should be examined and be effectively exercised (Doyle et al., 2015). Such an analysis requires a critical examination of the forms and processes of power in operation and how politics operates and interacts with lesser and greater scales of government and networks of power (Parker, 2011). Just like governance, the concept of power was traditionally confined to the agencies or institutions of the state and the actors involved in contesting and making political decisions in and for societies (Ibid). Thus, there is the power given to the representatives from political parties through elections or the ballot box, the power of organizations and institutions, perhaps from big business or other organizations to control and influence the processes of urban politics in their own way (Hall &

Barrett, 2012). There is also another power held by the less powerful actors within the urban environment such as civil society groups and residents who resist or protest any decision against their interest. It is important that when thinking about power in the urban environment, we should not then limit our reasoning only to the narrow function emerging out of formal political processes (Parker, 2011). Following this, Sharp (2000), states in relation to power that “in particular we wish to emphasize the myriad entanglements that are integral to the working of power, stressing that there are wounds up in these entanglements, countless processes of domination and resistance

15

which are always implicated in, and mutually constitutive of one another” (Sharp, 2000; see also Few, 2002).

The basis of power sometimes remains subtle but are mostly made manifest through its effects (McAreavey, 2009). This occurs in modes of “resistance” and “domination” (Sharp, 2000; Few, 2002). This present a challenge in itself and may help explain the reason why the much recent debate on power tends to be identified with the sources of power, how power is exercised and the consequences it brings. Understanding and exploring good garbage governance cannot be divorced from the issue of power with an unequal power relation existing amongst different social actors.

The occurrence of unequal power relations determines the way solid waste is governed in the municipality. Social actors and their relations in environmental governance are deeply embedded in politics and power and therefore an analysis or study on good garbage governance should strive at bringing to bare these nuances in power and examine their origins and implications (Bridge &

Perreault, 2009). Power in solid waste governance can be exercised through various processes and forms. In this research, distributive and collective approaches to power are considered. These will help identify the various sources of power at play in solid waste governance.

Distributive Power according to Weber (1947), is “the probability that one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests” (1947). Weber’s explanation to power describes how one individual in a social relationship (relational power) has the capacity (power as capacity) to exercise power over another. McAreavey (2009), ascertains that for one actor to gain and exercise power, the other actor(s) must experience a loss in power. This conceptualisation of power held by Weber portrays how power is unequally distributed among actors within society and thus represents a distributive approach (ibid). In this way, power is simply limited to a sect of individuals or a person. Weber in his explanation of power does not only limit his ideas to economics but also conceive notions of politics, culture, and ideology, which serves as sources of power to social actors. Weber distributive power approach analyses power at the micro level, considering an individual’s capacity over other individuals. According to Law (1991), power is exercised through social, economic, cultural and political connectedness among social actors (see also in Sharp, 2000; Few, 2002). In this regard, the position of an actor within a group determines one’s degree of power exercised. To Foucault (1986), power is the transformative action of people

16

embedded within the social system and resides in the very judgement and acts of individuals.

People produce power in accordance to their social, economic, cultural and political stands to influence others. That is, social actors exercise power from multiple sources including wealth, forces, technical knowledge and skills, access to state apparatus and idea system. For instance, in developing countries, distributive power is exercised by the governments in the society due to their positions (by means of political appointment) in relation to the masses. Power among these actors is unequal causing the powerful group to have dominance over the other. However, power should not be regarded in a unidirectional sense in all cases which produce outcomes of dominance but also the ability of the subjects to resist the power exercised on them (Lukes, 2005; Few, 2002).

Collective power, according to McAreavey (2009, citing from Parson’s (1960), moves power relations from the individual perspective to a broader perspective. To quote Parsons, “power is a generalised facility or resource in the society. It has to be divided or allocated, but it also has to be produced and it has collective as well as distributive functions” (Parsons, 1960). Parsons explains that collective power is maintained and enhanced through a system of co-operation, such as people’s obligations or commitment to the community they live in. Power here is understood as a generalised capacity (sovereignty) within the social life of people or society rather than the individual relationships. Central to this idea is that the consents of community members provide the community with the capacity to act (ibid). Albeit the approach enables us to understand the source of community power and how it is exercised, it ignores the fact that the community is a heterogeneous unit with conflicting interests among the various actors or community members (Gidddens, 1968). Social actors seeking for social change or development may carry out their activities within voluntary systems. With some community members being interested in the course of the community in bringing about development, others also exercise their choice (power) by not partaking in the development agenda of the community. This might be related to issues like politics of cultural difference as a result of ethnicity (see Myers, 2005), political affiliation, and, religion.

Though actors might choose to remain within the group or society, it cannot be firmly agreed that consensus would be reached. Social actors do not share the same objective and it is more likely that reaching a common ground must be contested. Nevertheless, legitimacy and cooperation among the majority of the society serve as the capacity for the group to exercise power (Parson, 1960; McAreavey, 2009).

17

It is important to stress that, these approaches to power are not mutually exclusive within the society (Heiskala, 2001). According to Mann (1986), power relates to individuals with one having power over the other but also serves as collective actions through cooperation where people can combine resources to dominate or resist another hence the two coexist. In this study, my aim is to use these two approaches to power to understand how power is manifested among the actors. In addition, how the usage of power operates in order to affect decision- making process on good garbage governance in GEMA.

2.2.6 Environmental Conflict

Conflicts create the atmosphere for discussions, debates, and deliberation about the right means of dealing with urban problems like poor solid waste management (Davies 2008). Davies, further explains that conflicts about solid waste can be damaging to the environment and pose a threat to environmental health. This is because it delays procedures and processes about the right treatment of solid waste. Environmental conflicts can be traced to the growing struggles over environmental resources including land, forestry, water resources among others resources. This struggle might stem from the increasing misuse of these resources. Following Feitelson (2001), Oteng- Ababio (2011), opines that environmental conflicts in low-income areas of the developing world can be as a result of their opposition to the forceful relocation of a hazardous project into these areas. The cause of environmental conflict can also be attributed to the weak environmental governance whereby society is regarded as an independent entity and not a social construct. The views of societal members are needed in terms of policy formulation and implementation (Bush, 1997;

Oteng- Ababio, 2011). The inhabitants in these low-income areas are sometimes not consulted in the initial phase of the proposed project. In addition, government authorities sometimes do not fulfill the conditions attached to the relocation of these hazardous projects to the receiving communities. This, however, cause a resistance from the community when the implementation of the project is about taking place. (Text Box 2.1 below, presents a case of Environmental conflict and governance from Israel).

18 2.2.7 Environmental (in)justice and Inequality

International, national and regional inequalities in terms of socio- economic variables such as income, population density, age composition, unemployment rate and the education level may have a great impact about the difference in waste generation, collection, transportation, and recycling (Chen, 2010). Over the past few decades, there have been great improvements in environmental protection and regulatory arrangements. However, Bullard (1993; 2001) opines that, regardless of such great improvements, about a total of 1.3 billion individuals globally reside in unsafe and unhealthy physical environments. Hazardous waste generation, waste facility location and international and national movement of hazardous waste and toxic products pose some important health, environmental, legal, political, and ethical consequences (ibid).

Environmental benefits and regulations have not been equally distributed across all segments of society. Some communities in most cases are polluted and poisoned with hazardous waste facilities while governments and other political leaders and elites look on (Bullard, 2001). Environmental (in)justice and Inequality serve as equally important concepts in understanding this phenomenon.

Environmental injustice as explained by Pellow (2000; citing from Bryant, 1995) is when a particular social group (defined based on variables like income status, age, race, educational level among other variables) suffers or is burdened with a hazardous project like a waste facility. With Environmental Injustice, individuals lack the resources and power to prevent the unequal distribution of such environmental burden. Environmental injustice has both socio- economic and geographic dimensions and usually denies households that fall as victims, an unequal access to resources (Bullard, 2005). Bryant (1995) further defines Environmental justice as “the cultural norms and values, behaviours, decision, policies, regulation that supports sustainable communities where people can interact with the confidence that the environment is safe, nurturing and productive”. Bryant further intimates that Environmental justice is enhanced by a “decent paying safe job, quality education and recreation, decent housing, adequate health care, democratic decision-making and potential empowerment as well as communities free from violence, drugs and poverty. It occurs when the cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered and where distributive justice prevail” (Bryant, 1995).

Environmental justice is a problem- solving concept based on life supporting factors as mentioned in the above definition. In order to understand Environmental in(justice) and how it comes about,

19

there is the need to take a critical look at Environmental Inequality. Environmental inequality examines the broader social, political, economic and historical factors that have produced these environmental burdens. It delves into the structural processes of unequal distribution of power and resources and its consequential environmental decisions and burdens (Pellow, 2000). Until recently, most Environmental Inequality research focused on the existence of unequal outcomes rather that looking at how these unequal outcomes are produced or how they emerged. Pellow goes on to argue that, in a political economy, the struggles of individuals for power and resources produces some benefits and costs that are unequally distributed among these actors or individuals.

With this, Environmental Inequality involves how diverse individuals or actors with conflicting interest interacts to produce winners and losers within the global, national and regional political economy. Environmental inequality also involves a spatial dimension whereby actors at different locations interacts to produce outcomes at a particular conflict location (ibid).

20

In Israel, Nassim et al., explores how conflict over landfills development posed a threat to environmental health and urban quality. According to them, the 4% - 5% increase per annum in the urban population caused some difficulties to Israel’s Ministry of Environment in managing its solid waste as population growth led to an increase in the number of unregulated dumpsite, which had concern for the environment (Nassim et al., 2005; Davies, 2008). This caused the government to replace all unregulated dumpsites with a large-scale engineered dumpsite, which were to help improve upon urban quality. The detailed plan by the government’s Ministry of Environment failed to achieve its intended purpose as the planning process encountered a substantial opposition and delays from the locals. The level of resistance from the locals forced the MOE to come up with a new conflict approach including participation in the EIA and supervision that met the specific requirements of the various locals in Israel (Davies, 2008). For instance, in Dundaim, Nassim et al., (2005), illustrates that the communities who resisted the development of the engineered landfills were given a “host fee” whereby the regional council would gain a certain amount of money per tonne of waste disposed at their sites. This also did not satisfy all the residents as some used legal means to prevent the operation of the facility in Dundaim (see Davis, 2008). Regardless of this, the MOE and Interior ministry had succeeded in closing and improving some of the dumpsites.

Source: Davies 2008

Text Box 2. 1 Governance, Politics and Conflicts in Israel

21 2.3 Actor- Oriented Approach

According to Turner (2012), the Actor-oriented approach was propounded in reaction to earlier modernization, neo- Marxist and structuralist approaches that were criticized for their inability to explain specific differences in development, while overemphasizing economic determination (Hebinck, den Ouden, & Verschoor 2001). These perspectives placed less emphasize on the active role played by people or individual (agency) with regards to social change and development (Long, 2001). Long explains that it is crucial that much attention is placed on people who are engaged in the everyday process of social change by recognising their roles leading to their development.

Actor- Oriented Approach advances on a more sophisticated treatment of social change and development that emphasizes on the significant roles of human agency and self-organising processes, and the interactions of internal and external factors and relationships (Long, 2003). The approach contends that in development and policy interventions we often observe the emergence of a range of “negotiated orders, accommodations, oppositions, separations and contradictions”

(Long 2004; Turner, 2012).

Turner (2012), further argues that to fully grasp the everyday processes by which identities, social practices are shared and contested, one needs to analyse the extent to which the life worlds of actors, including their everyday socio- cultural practices are independent or at times subjected to extensive forms of power, ideology and institutions. It is these interactions that enable us to grasp the relation between the everyday life of people and the structural forces inherently at play in the society. This can be seen with individuals having differing interests who interact on daily basis or actors at a distant scale who still have a say in local outcomes (ibid). According to Long (2001:

cited also in Bjerkli, 2005; Acquah, 2015), actor-oriented approach explains how different actors react to similar problems at the same time. It posits that, society is heterogeneous and that different attitudes form part in understanding how society operates but these attitudes are subjected to macro and micro institutional processes which breed separations, oppositions, and harmony (Long, 2001).

This implies an analysis of the life worlds of actors and people whose actions are shaped by social meanings, purposes, and power. It also requires delving more deeply into the social and cultural discontinuities and ambiguities inherent in the society (ibid). Long (2003), goes on to posit that, social change is not confined to the local scene but rather embrace a wide range of social actors committed to different livelihood strategies, cultural interests, and political trajectories.It enables